Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[tlclark]

There is also plenty of evidence that hardened leather cuirasses were worn over mail in the middle ages. None of this is relevant to what might have been worn in Classical Rome.

I disagree. We are talking about the realm of possible when we bring up Medieval examples. A lot of the discussion has focused so far on what was possible and many seem to think that leather could not be used as armor. That is patently false. It may not prove the Romans had it, but it speaks to the possibility of leather armor in the Roman period.

Now about your other points.

The images you have clearly show a flexible garment. If it was intended to be used as armour then it would be rigid. Unless there is evidence of reinforcing plates (e.g. scales) - in which case they would be squamata or plumata, not musculata. It doesn't matter whether these flexible examples were made of leather or not since they cannot have been intended to be worn as armour. You keep mentioning hardened leather and then show us images of flexible garments. You can't have it both ways. A musculata made from hardened leather is not flexible.

I think this is a dismissal based on modern assumptions forced on the evidence and the definition of "armor". It's a semantic run around the evidence.

The musculata is obviously armor. When we see these flexible cuirasses next to these statues and they have ALL of the features of the musculata, then we can only assume that they are meant to represent the musculata. I can understand people arguing that they are largely ceremonial, but not armor at all? That's utterly arbitrary.

Also on the issue of flexibility, your argument ignores the nature of hardened armor. Hardened armor comes in a variety of hardnesses, depending on how it's prepared, and the length of time it is boiled or treated. The bergama statue shows a cuirass that is clearly not VERY flexible, but rather semi-rigid. Even slightly more rigid leather would provide more protection, especially if layered with an effective subarmalis, linen or mail.

Again I invoke the Hamblin rule. Armor should never be judged against some arbitary standard, but against the next best available alternative. Also, your analysis ignores the nature of armor and its importance beyond simple defense, which includes display and social rank. Since decoration was an important feature of the musculata, and a officer's status, and leather was one of the only materials that could be both molded AND flexible, it's logically the most probable material used for these cuirasses.

Travis